# placebo effect; in pipe smoking?



## GuitarDan (Nov 26, 2009)

Can Tobacco Warnings Kill Through Placebo?, page 1

It makes a bit of sense to me...


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Jack Straw (Nov 20, 2008)

Interesting. Never thought about that.


----------



## Emjaysmash (May 29, 2008)

Interesting read! Thanks!


----------



## cactusboy33 (Sep 25, 2009)

Interesting read. Also it would be nice going to have nice smoke without giant pictures of sperm all across my baccy.

That and syringes they like to put syringes on the warnings. I don't know why either.


----------



## Brinson (Oct 28, 2007)

cactusboy33 said:


> Interesting read. Also it would be nice going to have nice smoke without giant pictures of sperm all across my baccy.
> 
> That and syringes they like to put syringes on the warnings. I don't know why either.


Huh, all my tobacco only says:

Warning: This product contains/produces Chemicals known to the State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth Defects, or Other Reproductive Harm.

No emblems or pictures or such.

Personally, I don't buy much into the placebo effect for something like this.


----------



## cactusboy33 (Sep 25, 2009)

Brinson said:


> Huh, all my tobacco only says:
> 
> Warning: This product contains/produces Chemicals known to the State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth Defects, or Other Reproductive Harm.
> 
> ...


Yeah I have some baccy that has come from the states and thats all it has. My 'domestic' tobaccos have large pictures and big BIG bold statements about the health risks.

It's great being a pipe smoker in the UK


----------



## Mr.Lordi (May 20, 2007)

Maybe I'm not quite getting this article, but from what I'm seeing, he is saying that tobacco deaths is basically willed into existence by people believing that tobacco, can in fact, kill you? :/

His evidence is linking a completely unrelated event? I'll give him that the labels probably induce extra stress, adding to the every day stress of life naturally, therefore, probably indirectly causing a lot more heart attacks or stress related deaths, but that is about it, if even that. 


Maybe we only actually age because we're told we get older, too! What if we willed ourselves younger? /sarcasm


I've always felt that nicotine addiction was BS and it was really dependent on the persons personality. I've managed to create anecdotal evidence on this, at best. I like Lucky Strike cigarettes, to the point were if I don't have the money for them, I don't smoke cigarettes at all. I get no withdrawal symptoms from nicotine. My chest will sometime hurt, but I'm assuming its recovering from the unnatural act of inhaling smoke into ones lungs. 

I chew tobacco as well, to the same effect. I don't ever feel a need for nicotine, nor do I ever feel the need for chewing for the sake of chewing.

Sometimes I do feel like I want a cigarette or maybe have some chew, BUT It is the same feeling I get towards smoking the pipe and cigars. Occasionally, but not all the time. 

Therefore, if I am addicted to cigarettes as people might assume I am, since everyone who smokes is "addicted" then so must I be addicted to the pipe and cigars, going with that logic.


They also been saying for years that Pot does X, Y and Z, and yet, there is no conclusive proof of any of the bs they claim, because they are full of it. Using the placebo effect, though, someone, somewhere must of gone insane because of Marijuana, right? Yet, there is no known cases of marijuana creating mental illness, only ever exacerbating all ready present symptoms. 

Now, they say that Marijuana smoking doesn't cause lung cancer. Although there is no real strong evidence behind this, as pot smokers also tend to be tobacco users, but for the sake of argument, let us assume pot doesn't cause lung cancer and tobacco does. Why then, does one cause it, and not the other?

I've always thought that the difference lies in the curing process. 


Just my 2 Cents!


----------



## indigosmoke (Sep 1, 2009)

Brinson said:


> Huh, all my tobacco only says:
> 
> Warning: This product contains/produces Chemicals known to the State of California to Cause Cancer, Birth Defects, or Other Reproductive Harm.
> 
> ...


For this who haven't seen the UK type warning photos here you go:

http://www.talktalk.co.uk/money/galleries/view/money/smokingpicturewarnings/browse/1

Here's the one related to male fertility:










Many of the others are much more graphic pics of diseases. I guess they couldn't come up with a disgusting picture of weakened sperm. See the above link if you are interested.


----------



## Spectabalis (May 17, 2010)

That's one of the milder pics, Indigosmoke. They cover so much of the tin/pouch that we have to refer to tobacco reviews.com in order to see what the tobacco consists of when trying a new baccy. It sure is Nanny State gone mad over here, esspecially with our Health and Safety laws thrown in as well. Kids can't play at conkers in the playgroung unless they wear goggles! When I think back to what it was like when I was young......
Roger


----------



## mbearer (Jun 2, 2010)

Spectabalis said:


> When I think back to what it was like when I was young......
> Roger


Imagine all those horrid risks you took... That you actually made it ALIVE.. and with both eyes... and fingers and toes and... How did you do it without all these laws to protect you and keep you safe...

The world is going way to PC and soft and cuddly but yeah.. The Nanny state is pushing that envelope too.. We aren't going to be to far behind ya though it seems
Mike


----------



## d_day (Aug 24, 2008)

Mr.Lordi said:


> Maybe I'm not quite getting this article, but from what I'm seeing, he is saying that tobacco deaths is basically willed into existence by people believing that tobacco, can in fact, kill you? :/
> 
> His evidence is linking a completely unrelated event? I'll give him that the labels probably induce extra stress, adding to the every day stress of life naturally, therefore, probably indirectly causing a lot more heart attacks or stress related deaths, but that is about it, if even that.
> 
> Maybe we only actually age because we're told we get older, too! What if we willed ourselves younger? /sarcasm


Funny, when I read the article I got something completely different from it. What I took from it was that a placebo can have an undesired effect based on how it is administered, that tobacco warnings meet roughly the same criteria as placebo, and that it is possible that tobacco warnings _might_ have a negative influence on health. It's merely pointing out what is possible, not stating that it is factual or even probable.

Certainly seems to call for some deeper investigation.


----------



## Mr.Lordi (May 20, 2007)

d_day said:


> Funny, when I read the article I got something completely different from it. What I took from it was that a placebo can have an undesired effect based on how it is administered, that tobacco warnings meet roughly the same criteria as placebo, and that it is possible that tobacco warnings _might_ have a negative influence on health. It's merely pointing out what is possible, not stating that it is factual or even probable.
> 
> Certainly seems to call for some deeper investigation.


This is, in part, what got me to interpret the article they way I did.



Article said:


> Given the way they were able to come up with semi-scientific research *that smoking might not cause cancer* up till the early 19990's, I could think of no one better to conduct research, and to lobby the government to conduct its own research (or otherwise allow the government to face unlimited liabilities running into many billions of dollars for needlessly making smoking more hazardous).


I'm going to assume he meant 1990's and not 19990's. Anyways, here he is taking about "Semi-Scientific" research. Semi, in my opinion, meaning "Pseudo Science", since real Science is either that or Pseudo Science.

He specifically states the part were smoking might not cause cancer. This is were I have to ask if all those who died of lung cancer from smoking willed their cancer into existence because of warnings?

I won't even get into the fact its listed in "Medical Issues & *Conspiracies*" or all the typos it includes.

Like I said, added stress to smokers might result from it, but you'd never link it to the warning labels in a million years, since smoking does more harm then any label would and no one would believe for a second that warning labels were the main cause. If anything, its the curing process that makes tobacco more carcinogenic, and thus harmful, then any label could.

Lets assume, for a moment, I'm able to suspend disbelief (and all rational thought, for that matter) and assume that warnings labels somehow have placebo like effects, that could potentially harm people. Then he has inadvertently proven Bill Hicks right.



Bill Hicks said:


> What's cool is every pack has a different Surgeon General's warning. Isn't that great? Mine says, "Warning! Smoking may cause fetal injury or premature birth" F**K it! Hahaha. Found my brand. Just don't get the ones that say "lung cancer", y'know. Shop around, man. "Yeah, gimme a carton of 'low birth weights'. What the F**K do I care."?


lol


----------



## Zeabed (Apr 23, 2009)

Warning: Smoking kills

warning: Reading the smoking kills label kills.


----------



## Jogi (Dec 4, 2009)

A bit off-topic, but if the governments are really that worried about the people's health, IMHO they should make the fast-food chains put health warnings on their products as well. Every other day I come across MSN/Yahoo articles about how dangerously unhealthy *most *of the offerings from multimillion-dollar fast-food giants are... And by God they are addictive too... :shock:

How about "Warning: McThis-and-that causes clogged arteries and heart-attacks/stroke."???


----------



## smelvis (Sep 7, 2009)

I think less placebo and more subliminal, I don't watch commercials for a reason, go tivo! I know get out the tin foil hats again :biggrin:


----------



## MarkC (Jul 4, 2009)

I've done a lot of research into this, and I've come to the conclusion that the leading cause of death is being born. 


Oh, yeah; and milk is a gateway drug.


----------



## paracite (Jan 8, 2010)

I once got a pack of Royal Dutch in London and it has a picture of a dead guy on it "Smoking Kills." This is particularly Europe that does this sort of thing. Bluntly stating what smoking could possibly do to a person (a lot of times, it is actually true).

My problem about the author of the article is that the warnings on the labels are not placebo. It's being told frankly what tobacco could do. It can possibly cause us to have anxiety, stressing the immune systems (what can fight smoke & cancer in our bodies?) thus compromising our defenses and allow cancer to develop.

[sorry everyone i wrote this when I was very sleepy, not sure if this is coherent.]


----------

